mt cuadan. is there a legal problem

in both the gda and caz reports, a comment is made clarification of the underlying rights of sbm. this is all very strange. when the agreement that caz has with gda, then in the full legal agreement, there would be something to the effect that gda have unencumbered title to the claims. caz would want to be confident that when they agreed to spend $1m for an 80% share, that they would get 80%. now there is the suggestion that the area might have an underlying right, to the area

watso could make further comment, but will leave it at that